Wednesday, September 3, 2014

I've been interacting with people some on this issue. Here are some additional thoughts that I've written in these interactions:That Farris Calls Patriarchy Harmful, Dangerous, and ExtremeAllow me to point out that a huge hole is missing in the Farris article. Farris fails to explain in any fashion whatsoever precisely what dangers are brought by these views, or why these views are dangerous. He also does not explain why so many have and do hold to such views and why such views are now harmful or dangerous when they have not been seen as such before.

Who claims the right to label these (or any views) as harmful or extreme apart from such proof? Isn’t that itself a misuse of terminology for these views? Is it “extreme” or “harmful” or “dangerous” for someone not to attend higher education? Is it “extreme” or “harmful” or “dangerous” to encourage daughters to remain under the provision and protection of fathers until married? Is it “extreme” or “harmful” or “dangerous” for someone not to vote (many DON’T vote in any given election). I cannot make the connection. Such views may be inconvenient or restrictive in the eyes of some, but not dangerous. Maybe the views come from poor exegesis or bad logic (or maybe people just don’t understand the reasons or logic that cause people to come to such views).

Is it too much to ask for an argument to be clearly articulated against any clearly documented view? Is it unfair to ask for someone placing any such label on a view to present more than just opinion, and to identify and demonstrate how it is harmful or extreme? It has to be a convincing argument as well, not an opinion. Opinions are not enough to limit someone elses freedom. Opinion is all that Farris offers by his own admission.

I would again point out that these things now labeled extreme were the norm. How can such things now be considered harmful that were the basis of our nation for over 130 years?

Whole groups before Phillips or Gothard ever breathed a breath believed in a patriarchal system, where the man was the provider and protector and the woman was the homemaker and mother. That is not dangerous. It may no longer be politically correct, but it is still a view that can be held (and is held) by many people, believing that such is what the Bible teaches.

What’s worse, Farris doesn’t actually define the patriarchal view (as if there was one definition anyway). He only hints at things that lead people who read his article to believe that holding to a traditional view of marriage and family and gender are harmful. He gives no boundaries, only vague warnings, and that affects a much larger group than any that would hold to the “patriarchal view” as it is now known, including many throughout history.

It is not wrong to come to different conclusions. It is wrong, harmful, extreme, and dangerous to attack such views with those same labels without going beyond just assigning labels. That is incredulous, and why I’m so blown away by this article by a man that I sincerely admire.

I can go further. Who’s job is it to determine who or what has a boundary placed around it? It was apparently wrong for Phillips or Gothard to do that, teaching what they believed to be the truth (and I believe that they did so with sincerity). Is it not wrong for Farris to turn around and do the same? Phillips and Gothard at least had concrete teachings that they delineated in detail (however they might have derived at them), whereas Farris does a poor job at even expressing his objections, let alone any principles that led him to his conclusions (none of which were exegetical in nature). Farris has not approached this with any true argument or evidence. He pointed out beliefs, and assumed that they were dangerous without proving so. How can there be a “moral and ethical requirement to delineate boundaries” on that basis? He also marks any and all that somehow identify with any view of Phillips or Gothard (he drew no boundaries around them or their beliefs) as suspect, and indeed harmful, dangerous, etc.

Someone or something determines absolutes, or there are none. On what basis are these things decided, and by whom?

That Farris Presented Adequate Evidence (Victims, Moral Failure, Poor Exegesis) Farris does not “present evidence.” He only infers victim reports (which I addressed in my original post as unusable as they are not themselves specified, extracted, studied, and validated in any way) with absolutely no clear information about who, what, how or why such harm has been done. It is interesting that the school for which he serves as chancellor has discounted sexual attacks which have much more specific details, and yet he doesn’t suggest that this school shut down.To say that either Phillips or Gothard has a “poorly exegeted belief system” is simply opinion until a time when it is clearly argued and demonstrated to be so. This would also seem to require reasonable proof that the person doing so has a demonstrably solid and provable belief system as well. Farris has done neither.As with my previous point above, this amounts to name-calling or empty accusation without evidence. There is none presented in the Farris article regarding what or why either man’s belief system is the result of poor exegesis. It is a horrible article because of this. Had Farris argued from that angle (a great place to start), then he could proceed on to show why various beliefs that either man held were wrong based upon a provably solid hermeneutic. He does not establish the men’s failures in their studies, so he cannot fairly label them as such (though many readily grab the labels and run with them).Leaders fall. As I mentioned in some fashion in my original article, no group or belief system would stand if judged by moral failures within, regardless of the group. What makes this group different? (And it really isn’t a single group in any fashion, but rather a various interpretations that are similar but may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with the men Farris calls out.)Further, Farris has not in any way connected what was taught with the presumed sins of these men. I am all for evaluating the teachings of anyone, and it should happen constantly, not just after moral failure. However, to suggest that, for example, Phillips’ teaching led him to have some sort of immoral relationship needs to be substantiated, Farris has done no such thing. There is a large group of people that hold to such traditional views who have not fallen as Phillips has fallen. Do they count for any evidence to the contrary? Why does one fallen leader who holds to a view make suspect an entire body of disconnected people who hold to the same views?Regardless of the number of women who have come forward for Gothard (I know little about the accusations, but apparently they were not in the same realm as Phillips’ accusations), teachings and principles need evaluated. Gothard impacted people for years, and what I have been exposed to wasn’t harmful or dangerous (having a clear conscience, etc.). I did not like his hermeneutic (or lack thereof) but I wouldn’t call any of his teachings that I ever heard “dangerous” or “harmful.”That Farris Accurately and Adequately Presented the Patriarchal ViewFarris does quote from a small segment of a very large Vision Forum document. The document, though, is not an explanation of beliefs but a summary of them. That is not, therefore, a good source. You can find out what they believe from such a document, but you cannot understand fully why they believe it without further explanation. The verses at the end of each statement are just related verses which cannot be understood until the presenter explains how they related to the summary they are listed under. (We have the same kind of thing in our belief statement at our church.) How can one effectively argue against a summary paragraph and label it as dangerous? (And Farris does not argue against it.)Farris states that the Laban passage (was it Gen 28?) was the primary Biblical citation to prove the point. That is false. The passage is simply listed below the summary, along with four other Biblical references in English canonical order. Farris is arguing against a summary rather than an explanation, and he gets it all wrong. He needed to find a full detailed explanation as a source instead of arguing from ignorance. Until one hears their explanation of the passages, they are drawing from a very limited source.The entire argument of Farris is built upon the false premise that somehow this passage is the primary proof of this particular view:

It is a fundamental error of scriptural interpretation to assume that one narrative passage reveals a normative rule that we should all follow. In this same story, we see Laban embracing bigamy, selling his daughter in exchange for labor, and even resorting to sexual trickery. If we believe that one fact in this story reveals a universal rule from God, then all of the facts in this story should create such rules as well. Obviously, it is nonsense to use Laban’s treatment of his daughters to create universal norms. While the story may have lessons for us, the decisions of Laban are not universal commands from God.

The paragraph above the reference Farris argues against does not indicate that it is a normative rule that we should follow. The summary paragraph doesn’t explain the passage at all. That is my point. He needs better ammo before he chooses to fire. His logic is applied to a wrong premise.I believe the next Biblical reference under that summary paragraph was Numbers 30. That passage would probably be the “primary Biblical citation” if Farris were to actually research or ask. It proceeds to define a father’s responsibility over an unmarried daughter regarding vows she might make until she is married, and once married the husband assumes that responsibility. That, to some, does indeed support the principle of staying under the protective care of one’s father until marriage – giving only two scenarios apart from being divorced. (I assume you’ve read the passage, but if not, at least look at it.) I am not arguing for or against the view. There is Biblical basis that leads some people to believe such a practice. Is it fair to let people believe such things without labeling them as extreme or harmful? Do people have the religious freedom to be Amish? To be atheist? (I hear that’s harmful…) Why not this?That Farris Is Simply Saying Opinions Should Not Be Taught as Essential TruthsAny beliefs can probably be classified as opinions by others. Embracing absolutes really fall into another realm, don’t they? If one believes that the Bible defines gender roles and responsibilities by virtue of creation (God’s design), I might take that as an absolute, whereas someone else with an egalitarian view would not. People would approach the same passage with two completely different approaches. Regardless of which (if either) is accurate, is it fair to label one as harmful or dangerous and the other not? (I would guess that both sides might label the other view “harmful” or “dangerous” when pressed because of the ramifications of the views on many other things affected by one’s view.) Thus “God ordained” and “essential” is really somewhat subjective also. Whether they are “elevated to the same level of orthodox essentials” probably isn’t the point. If they feel the Bible teaches something, it is important to follow. It then goes back to engaging people in their views and arguing for or against the premises and proofs rather than labeling them in some way.

Marriage has been such an issue. Some could care less who you marry or if you marry at all. Others believe that marriage is specifically defined as one man and one woman, and even though that does not save someone, it is nonetheless nonnegotiable. If someone holds to any belief at that level, it is more than just an opinion from their perspective (whether others agree or not).If we have a right to our own opinions, we should at least allow others to have those same rights. Determining what is “essential” is really what someone needs to be persuaded in his or her own mind, not by someone else.That Farris Was Wrong to Wait, But Was Right to Call Out Men's TeachingsFrom what I understand, some were pressuring Farris from Patrick Henry College to denounce these leaders because of their strong affiliation with them in the past. I believe HSLDA and the college would have been better served in denouncing the men’s sins (even tentatively at the outset, since they didn’t know all the details), rather than their teachings. That’s for others to address (churches, pastors, individuals).

The role of the HSLDA has been much broader. They could just say that “We have a very broad group in the home school community which we serve. We will seek to make wise choices about advertising and affiliation, but we will continue to seek freedom for all homeschoolers. We encourage people to diligently study the Bible, and follow their convictions.”That Farris Had to Do This Because Organizations Lack Good AccountabilityI do not think that “it has to come to this” because organizations are independent and autonomous. The accountability has to be fought on a scale of ideas and arguments, not labels and shallow accusations.

The Farris article has done no one any favors. HSLDA and Farris have been harmed. The homeschooling movement as a whole has been harmed. Homeschoolers that hold to a more patriarchal view are now considered “harmful” (even though such views have been the norm until the last century).

Farris has only given the public policy makers quotable snippets from an “expert” (who spoke out of his realm of expertise) to use against anyone who schools their children at home. (Homeschooling is seen by some as harmful; this will make it even more so.)

I honestly think the homeschooling movement in general is one of the few remaining movements that resists the anti-Christian, evolution-based neo-education of the increasingly atheistic government (and I went to public school, but in a very, very different era). Firing a volley at others in one's own defense line is unthinkable, but now, reality.

Monday, September 1, 2014

A fast-growing flame
is spreading through the internet fueled by reactions to a recent article by Attorney
Michael Farris (Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association). Farris
separates himself and his organization from disgraced leader Doug Phillips and
another leader, Bill Gothard, whom he lumps together that has stepped down in
the midst of different accusations. Articles are surfacing rapidly to affirm or
reject the accusations Farris states about these two leaders (though he focuses
the majority of his attention on Phillips).

My desire is not to
evaluate each person’s actions to which they are accused. Though it needs to be
done, it must be done by those with accurate firsthand information. I do not
have direct access to information on either man. I also do not seek to evaluate
either man’s teachings, though I personally have been exposed to some teachings
of both men over the years. My foremost concern is how Farris approached this,
and on his comments which supposedly drew a “line in the sand.” For the record,
I hold Mr. Farris in very high regard, and my wife and I as home schooling
parents have been members of HSLDA for many years.

Farris Shows Up in a Proverbial
SWAT Uniform Claiming Not to Be the Police

To begin, Farris
first says that the role of HSLDA is not too “be the police force of the
homeschooling movement,” and it is not his place “to try to remove viewpoints
from the homeschooling community just because the HSLDA board or I hold a
different view.” He then proceeds to do exactly the opposite by seeking to
purge the views of these two men (Phillips and Gothard) from the homeschooling
movement by warning of the dangers of their teachings.

If Farris is honest
when saying HSLDA’s role is “to defend the freedom of everyone to homeschool,”
then he sure sets out to do so in a very strange and non-acrimonious way. He
paints himself into what has become a proverbial corner that seems to already
have divided the homeschooling movement right down the middle.

What Farris should
have done, in my opinion, was to stop there, and encourage people to study the
views of these and other men deeply, compare them to Scripture (these are both
Christian leaders), and to come to their own conclusions. Instead, Farris
errors to the point of being dangerous about warning about the “dangerous
teachings” of others. Here are a number of concerns that jumped right out at me
when I read his article:

Farris Changes the Focus from the
Sins of the Men to Their Teachings

If either of these
men are guilty (and such will eventually come to light), the issue for these
men is first and foremost their sinful actions. However, to simply condemn all
that they teach in a general way because of these sins puts anyone in a serious
dilemma. What movement has not had men fail in similar fashion? Does any such
sinful failure discount the movement?

Further, as soon as the
HSLDA begins examining the teachings of anyone that they had previously
affiliated with or represented or sold ad space to (and it was all of the
above), they must make a list of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable
to believe in the official view of the HSLDA. They immediately become the
police they claim not to be. And what of those who hold to any portions of
teaching that either of these men have taught over the years? What about other
teachers not yet determined to have crossed the line, but will? What teachings
will be ignored, and what teachings will be scrutinized?

Evaluating
potentially sinful actions is a challenge in the courts, but there is at least a
path to do so. Evaluating men’s teachings is an entirely different matter and
infinitely more complex. Though Farris lists just a few such teachings “to keep
this article at a reasonable length,” he paints with broad strokes that tell
very little information and argue only by accusation. He does not present full examples
of teachings from either man nor does he clearly refute them from Scripture. He
simply cites a few general examples, argues from a bit of logic (not Scripture),
rings the fire bell, and even does so while saying it is based upon his “personal
opinion,” not argument. If Farris wants to argue against teachings, he needs to
do so in a completely different way, being precise and thorough both in his
accusations and his refutations.

Another point from my
own observation is in order. When Farris says, “The personal failure of Doug Phillips in the area of marriage and his
mistreatment of a young woman bears directly on the legitimacy of his teaching,”
I cannot agree. I had heard Doug Phillips teach a few times in the past
and I have read some articles by him. From what I gather, his teachings were
not his downfall. From my vantage point, his sin did not come from his
teachings, but instead came from him ignoring the very teachings that he taught
from Scripture. I do not defend his teachings nor refute them (I am not
familiar enough with them to do either). He simply did not practice what he so passionately
preached. I believe that if we care to investigate the teachings of Phillips,
whether you agree with them or not, it is clear that he did not sin because of
his teachings, but sinned because he did not live by them.

Farris misses the
point altogether. If Farris evaluated anyone (even himself)
on such terms, not one group or movement would exist or should exist. Though
not every group has a leader who sins by having an extra-marital affair, all
groups or movements have leaders that fall or fail to some degree. I do not say
that Phillips should continue teaching – I strongly believe that he should not.
I simply suggest that a moral failure of a man does not itself indicate that the
movement of which he was a part is illegitimate or false. His actions need to
be evaluated as his own actions, and teachings of the patriarchal viewpoint
need to be evaluated on their own merit, or lack thereof (as all teachings
should be all along).

Farris Condemns Views that Have Been
Held Long Before These Men Were Ever Born

Farris cites three
brief examples of teaching (interestingly, not examples from either of these two
men). In focusing on his main premise of rejecting patriarchal teaching, he
lists three propositions which are “not universal commands of God”: (1) women
should not vote; (2) women should not seek higher education; and (3) unmarried
adult women are subject to their father’s authority until they are married.

What is mind-blowing
is that all of these things have been beliefs present and often foundation in
the USA since our founding. I’m not arguing for or against these views. What I
would encourage people to do is first to understand why people in the past and why
some people today believe there may be valid arguments for different views such
as these. Whether you land on one side or another, do people have the freedom
to come to their own conclusions without being labeled “dangerous” by anyone,
including a key leader of the homeschooling movement, a movement built on the
assumption of liberty and freedom?

Let’s take a look at
the first proposition that Farris lists: Women and voting. Do people recall
that in the USA women were not given the right to vote until 1920 when the 19th
Amendment to the Constitution was approved? Did the majority of our nation’s early
fathers (and mothers) illogically hold to such a view for no valid reason for
131 years? I am not seeking to present a side (I do encourage my wife and
daughters to vote, and they do). What I am saying is that to assign such a view
to these so-called “patriarchal teachers” and to further label it “dangerous”
is both ignorant and divisive. There were reasons why originally only land
owners could vote, or only those paying poll tax could vote, or those only 21
years and older could vote. Maybe they were poor reasons. Maybe they had some
good logic. My only point is, “How will you know the reasons they believed what
they believed until you investigate it yourself?” Discarding views before we
understand them is pure folly.

You can wrestle
further with this first issue with many observations from the Bible. Much
depends upon how you approach the Old Testament and New Testament teachings. It
will impact how you look at all three of the propositions Farris lists. Patriarchy
by definition is men leading their families and husbands leading their wives. In
the Bible men almost always led their wives and families, and often even lead their
extended families. This is illustrated in the Old Testament and taught in the
New Testament. Is it wrong since a now sinful Phillips cited the Bible when
teaching it? If the Bible says it (in the view of some), is the Bible
dangerous? Since there is no clear record of voting in the Bible (most cultures
lived under a theocracy – God ruling, or under monarchy – king rule, neither of
which allowed for voting), maybe it is dangerous for Farris to call any view
regarding voting “dangerous.”

The second
proposition is similar in that it is hard to argue from any direction. The
Bible does not address college. If one views a woman’s primary role of marriage
and motherhood as traditional Christianity has taught for two millennium, and as
the Old Testament has taught for much longer, is spending lots of money on a
college education a worthwhile investment? (Try looking up 1 Timothy 5:14 and
Titus 2:3-5 to make your politically correct blood boil a bit.) I have married
daughters that would say that attending college would have been a huge
impediment and a financial burden. I also know young men who avoid college for
other reasons. It is yet another realm to research, study, and come to your own
informed conclusions while you allow others to do the same.

The third proposition
about an unmarried daughter staying under her father until married still rings with
the same tone. Whether you or I accept them or not, there are reasons why
people come to such a conclusion. Doing so does not make them “dangerous” as
Farris would say. It simply lets them exercise their freedom to be persuaded in
their own minds. Read Numbers 30:1-15 from the Old Testament, and at least see
why people could come to such conclusions. (There are other passages too, but
this is a key one for that view.) Do people have the right to come to their own
conclusions regarding the interpretation and application of the Bible? Is it
not better, if we disagree with them, to seek to understand their
interpretation, and then to calmly point out why we disagree rather than
writing an internet posting calling them “dangerous?”

Farris Uses Poor Experiences of
Some to Judge the Views Held by Many More

“What has changed our minds are the stories we are now hearing of
families, children, women, and even fathers who have been harmed by these
philosophies. While these stories represent a small minority of homeschoolers,
we can see a discernible pattern of harm, and it must be addressed.”

Maybe I am biased or
bent, but does anyone catch the irony of this? A small minority report
undefined “harm” from these unclarified philosophies, and that is what caused the
HSLDA and Farris to change their minds? What about the majority? Do they count?
What are the specifics of this “harm?” Could this “harm” really be due to
following the teachings of either man? Could it not come from following the
teachings of either man incompletely? Could “harm” come from wrongly thinking
that either man had a “golden ticket” to easy family life? Is there
specifically identifiable “harm” that can be clearly traced to something specifically
taught? Could this “harm” be due to personal failure looking for someone to pin
the blame upon? (I know I have failed many times as a father and husband, but I
have no one to blame in the end but myself.) We will never know, because Farris
never shares one shred of information about this “harm.”

I do not claim to
follow Phillips or Gothard. I follow neither. As I mentioned, I have been exposed
to the teachings of both men. From what exposure I and my family have had, I
would not and could not blame either man for any “harm” that could or would or
did come to my family. I am responsible to study the Bible and come to my own conclusions,
which I have and continue to do. These men can neither make nor break a family
or an individual that is responsible for what they believe. To take the
minority and make it the rule is to come to dangerous conclusions in a
dangerous methodology (and it is practiced throughout our culture today). What
about those who believe such things and who have stood in righteous behavior?
If bad behavior is the basis for discounting one’s beliefs, does the good
behavior of others justify those same beliefs?

Farris Gives Pragmatism as a Key
Reason for His Speaking Out

“…their teachings continue to threaten the freedom and integrity of the
homeschooling movement. That is why HSLDA needs to stand up and speak up.”

“The philosophies of Gothard and Phillips damage people in multiple
ways. To keep this article at a reasonable length, I will focus on the
threats to our liberty caused by these philosophies.”

“If public policy makers understand that there are only a few
homeschooling families who mistreat their children, our freedom is not likely
to suffer.”

This is a losing
premise. Attack one part of the group in hopes that by doing so it saves the
larger group. I would suggest that we are past pragmatic responses. What of
Christian teachings that are already a threat to our liberties? Shall we cease teaching
the 10 commandments which are seen by many to be harmful or dangerous? Is the
belief in a literal creation held by some and mocked by atheistic scientists to
be curbed to protect our freedoms? Is the belief of a Bible-defined marriage
between one man and one woman to be jettisoned to save face? By defining “mistreat”
as someone who espouses patriarchy, who does Farris hope to fend off from his
own organization, the same organization who sided with the patriarchal people
for so long? He has avoided nothing but to throw bloody meat to the hungry sharks
around his own boat which will only be further tantalized by the taste and
become hungrier.

Farris Provides Public Policy
Makers the Very Information He Sought to Avoid

“What has changed our minds are
the stories we are now hearing of families, children, women, and even fathers
who have been harmed by these philosophies.”

It would be nice if
Farris, a lawyer, would define his terms. Harm in what way? Vagueness only
causes fear rather than clarity and calm.

When you read his
article, it is not hard to see that Mr. Farris is guilty of labeling anyone who
might believe in patriarchy in any flavor, or any form of what some would view
as traditional teaching on marriage and the family, as “harmful.” Whether he
sees it or not, Farris with his homeschooling platform has done many a great
disservice, and he himself has endangered many by his comments. He might
literally have begun the process to limit the freedoms of those he disagrees
with by categorizing them as dangerous (in the name of preserving liberty!). His
“line in the sand” has done a big favor to the liberty takers by publicly identifying
many as being on the wrong side of the line. He has labeled many as harmul,
abusive, or extremist who are none such, whether he meant for it to happen or
not.

Farris Opens Dangerous Doors
Rather than Closing Them

“It is not sinful to hold a very conservative view of gender roles or
child rearing. If people believe such ideas are wise, then our legal system
should protect their choices, provided
those choices do not result in abuse.” [Emphasis added.]

Farris cannot win.
The more he writes the more he hurts the greater cause of all who love freedom.
He of all people should know that many see homeschooling as a form of child
abuse. Others see teaching kids Biblical morality as child abuse. One cannot
talk “abuse” without defining very clearly what one means by that term.

“What I should not do is claim that my personal views are universal commands
of God. Those more conservative or more liberal than I am should not claim that
their personal views are universal commands of God. God speaks for Himself, and He does it in the Bible.”
[Emphasis added.]

“We have a really easy way to know God’s universal commands. They are
written in the Bible.”

Just how do people
who study the Bible and come to different conclusions survive under this type
of view that Farris espouses? Do they write to Farris and have him screen their
interpretations of Scripture? Good Christian teachers teach what they teach
because they are convinced that it is what God is teaching based upon their own
study of the Bible. Phillips and Gothard both did so. Others come to different
conclusions and teach those conclusions as teachings of God. Every teacher and
resultant teaching still is as faulty as the people that study the Bible. Do we
give up all Bible teachers and teaching unless blessed by Farris or the HSLDA?
All Bible teaching needs to be wrestled with and discussed in depth by those
that study in depth, not by lawyers who are fearful of being found in wrong
associations. It is simply improper to hold a trial via a short article and
find people guilty in such a flaccid fashion. It is not helpful, scholarly, or
fair to do so, and it has only resulted in hurting the very cause Farris has
fought so hard to defend. Is freedom only allowed if others approve of our
conclusions, whatever they may be? Will the HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense
Association) become the AHSLDA (Approved Home School Legal Defense
Association)?

Farris Does Not Accurately
Represent What He Does Cite

“Gothard and Phillips are entitled to share their personal opinions if
they label them correctly. When it is claimed, for example, that God never wants any daughter to leave home until she is
married, the patriarchy movement goes too far. That is human opinion wrapped in a false claim that God has announced a
universal truth.” [Emphasis added.]

I
would have to read or listen to more of either Phillips or Gothard to be sure,
but the idea of Farris calling the view of Gothard and Phillips “human opinion”
is itself human opinion about other’s views of what God has said or
established. Farris is setting himself up as the one that is the authority on
the views of all others. I am not suggesting he desires this, but there is no
way around it. For me to call someone else’s conviction of truth an “opinion”
is a very lousy way to prove that it is indeed an opinion. Proving a view is
only an opinion takes articulated, reasoned arguments, as any lawyer should
know.

“This particular example is a good way to demonstrate a common error in
both men’s theologies. Phillips has stated that daughters should remain in
their fathers’ homes until married. His
principal biblical citation for this argument is the story of Rachel and Leah
in the home of their father, Laban.” [Emphasis added.]

Wanting to be as
informed as possible, and thinking I was slightly more informed about what
Phillips taught than what Farris was presenting Phillips view to be, I followed
the citation after “Laban” to actually look at the Vision
Forum article that Farris cited. The Vision Forum article did not, as
Farris suggest, present the account of Laban as the “principal citation.” It was
listed as the first of five Bible references listed in Biblical order. The
nature of the article was supportive, not explanatory. It listed all relevant
references at the end of summarizing statement, and didn’t explain how the
references related to that statement. This is just plain shoddy research, or
dishonest representation, both of which are wrong anytime, and especially when
making such accusations.

To properly use the
Vision Forum article, one would have to know what the verses were and how they
would tie into the statement. It really was not a good document to try to
convey the viewpoint of Vision Forum or Phillips. Farris grabs the first
reference in the list, assumes it is the “principal biblical citation” and then
proceeds to attack it “primary citation” with an argument all the while not
knowing that the claim he makes about the reference is invalid.

Farris Ignites the Offended, the “Hurt,”
the Rebellious, and the Media

What is clear to see
is that many are happy for what Farris has written. Comments on the HSLDA
Facebook page are full of affirmations such as “It’s about time someone wrote
this!” As with any Christian ministry, movement, or leader, you will find a
large audience of the mutually offended or hurt to help you stone it to death
(if possible). By referring to the “harmed” without defining the “harm,” Farris
also calls out (and calls in) all who might remotely hate the movements
mentioned. Such is a great way to engage the non-critical thinkers of our day,
glad to see death of something they do not understand. Further, a simple
internet search will show anyone how quickly the media forest fire is spreading
on this topic. People love to see the one conservative Titanic – homeschooling –
going down in pieces after this Farris iceberg. The sin of Phillips was a bad
crash for all homeschoolers; Farris throws gasoline on it for the media to
enjoy.

Farris has also
shocked many conservative homeschoolers beyond words. They feel wholly betrayed
by this very poorly researched, pragmatically written article that reaches
beyond Phillips and Gothard to people who care about neither. They believe what
they understand the Bible to teach as truth only now to be classified as “dangerous,”
“harmful,” “abusive” and “extremist” by the loosely applied generalizations of
Farris himself. He has drawn a line in the sand, and many of those who respect
him greatly for his work have found themselves on the wrong side of this line,
bewildered and wondering what the impact will be from the labels Farris has so carelessly
slapped upon them.

A Final Personal Note

I still hold Michael
Farris in high regard because of all that he has done to strengthen the
freedoms of home schooling families. He is a hero in his own right. I do not
doubt that Michael’s intentions in writing this article were good. However,
from my own vantage point, the article reads as though he wrote it pressed by fears
and maybe even threats brought about by past affiliations with Phillips and
Gothard; affiliations that the HSLDA by its very mission cannot wholly separate
itself from, but yet is still trying to do so. I do not believe Farris has
accomplished anything beneficial through this article, but on the contrary he
has managed to shatter the strong support of many that now find themselves on
the wrong side of the very sloppy and harmful line he has drawn.

About Me

Blessed husband of a Proverbs 31 woman, father of 15 awesome kids, grandfather of 13 super grandchildren, computer security tech by day, husband and father by night, part-time pastor in between, and random creator of things and occasional researcher of family history.